PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
176.45 - 178.59
86.62 - 184.48
124.91M / 173.95M (Avg.)
50.81 | 3.50
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
42.26%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MU's 19.40%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
33.62%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MU's 17.62%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
37.12%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MU's 20.85%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
37.12%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MU's 20.85%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
33.01%
Net income growth above 1.5x MU's 20.39%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
20.00%
EPS growth similar to MU's 20.55%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
25.00%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 20.55%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
1.51%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.30%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-0.08%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-66.51%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 317.47%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-105.20%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 111.10%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
212.15%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 272.80%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
212.15%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
212.15%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
51.59%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 480.54%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
51.59%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 40.30%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
51.59%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
244.57%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
244.57%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
244.57%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 22.75%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
407.50%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 770.59%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
407.50%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 74.07%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
407.50%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 56.62%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.27%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MU's 26.46%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
34.46%
Inventory growth well above MU's 25.37%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
4.88%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
14.02%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MU's 0.51%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
1.72%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
31.33%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
25.17%
We expand SG&A while MU cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.